Also known as: sexual mis-conduct · sex misconduct
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A category of serious sexual impropriety. Imputation of such conduct by spoken words constitutes slander per se and permits recovery without proof of special damages.
A category of serious sexual impropriety. Imputation of such conduct by spoken words constitutes slander per se and permits recovery without proof of special damages.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Alleged conduct that forms the basis of a civil or criminal proceeding. In such proceedings evidence offered to prove a victim's other sexual behavior or sexual predisposition is generally inadmissible.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Alleged conduct that forms the basis of a civil or criminal proceeding. In such proceedings evidence offered to prove a victim's other sexual behavior or sexual predisposition is generally inadmissible.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Sydney Santos told colleagues that Sebastian Santos had engaged in serious sexual misconduct with a subordinate. Sebastian sued for defamation and offered no evidence of lost income. The court permitted recovery because the spoken accusation fell within the slander per se category.
A manager publicly accused an employee of serious sexual misconduct during a staff meeting. The employee sued for slander but presented no proof of economic loss. Recovery was allowed because the accusation itself supplied the required element of presumed harm.
An accusation of serious sexual misconduct is one of the four traditional categories of slander per se. When spoken words impute such conduct, harm to reputation is presumed and the plaintiff need not prove pecuniary loss.
Supporting sources
Yes. The court decides whether the type of sexual misconduct imputed by spoken language is of such a character as to make the slander actionable per se.
Supporting sources
Sarah Sullivan was prosecuted for alleged sexual misconduct against Santiago Sanchez. The defense sought to introduce evidence that Sanchez had engaged in other sexual behavior with third parties. The court excluded the evidence under the general prohibition applicable to proceedings involving alleged sexual misconduct.
Sierra Santos faced criminal charges alleging sexual misconduct against Sofia Stern. The defense offered evidence of specific prior instances of consensual sexual activity between Santos and Stern. The court admitted the evidence because it was offered to prove consent.
In a prosecution involving alleged sexual misconduct, the defendant sought to introduce reputation evidence about the complainant's sexual history. The court applied the governing exclusionary framework and limited the proffered proof to the narrow statutory exceptions.
Evidence offered to prove that the victim engaged in other sexual behavior or to prove the victim's sexual predisposition is inadmissible in both civil and criminal proceedings involving alleged sexual misconduct.
Supporting sources
In a criminal case the court may admit evidence of specific instances of a victim's sexual behavior with the person accused of the sexual misconduct when offered by the defendant to prove consent or when offered by the prosecutor.
Supporting sources